Page:American Journal of Sociology Volume 10.djvu/282

 270 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY

as any one of the contributing subjects takes a disproportionately large place in our scheme, so will the true sociological character of sociology be lost. It seems to me therefore necessary approximately to determine what are the major social sciences that ought to be studied very fully by sociological investigators, and what are minor, that can be treated more briefly.

FROM PROFESSOR J. S. NICHOLSON, PROFESSOR OF POLITICAL ECONOMY, THE UNIVER- SITY OF EDINBURGH.

I am not sure that I quite understand the argument of the papers. As I understand it, I agree that sociology must be founded on particular social sciences, each of which requires its own evidences and methods, while at the same time efforts should be made toward unity and co-ordination. But the chief danger seems to me that the unification may be a priori and premature. An economist would no doubt be the better for some knowledge of every other social science. I was much interested lately in discussing with a folklorist the influence of superstitions on the origins of property, and even on the origin of the cultivation of land. In the same way as an economist I have been interested in archaeology, anthropology, etc. But it seems to me that a sociology founded on the particular social sciences must wait, and that at present an independent sociology would only be a priori anticipation.

FROM PROFESSOR SORLEY, PROFESSOR OF MORAL PHILOSOPHY, CAMBRIDGE.

I have time only for the briefest comment on the very interesting abstracts kindly forwarded.

Professor Durkheim lays stress upon two points : the need for a synthesis of the different departments of social investigation ; and the importance of the fundamental postulate that the facts with which the science of society deals must be included " within the unity of nature," the evolution. hypothesis being appli- cable to human society as it is to the physical and to the biological world. With the latter point he begins ; and on it I should like to make a single remark, not by way of objection, but perhaps as supplementing what he says.

In this regard the sociologist has, I think, two things to do. In the first place, he may show how far the processes of social growth correspond to the processes of cosmical and oT biological evolution. He has also, in the second place, to show the special modus operandi of evolution in the social sphere.

Evolution was an almost fruitless hypothesis in biology until Darwin laid his finger upon natural selection as its method. In doing this he did not merely bring biological evolution into line with cosmical evolution. He showed that biological evolution derived its direction and effectiveness from a principle which applies to living beings only, and not to inorganic matter. He distinguished the method of biological evolution from the method of cosmical evolution.

The sociologist has to consider whether the passage from the animal world to human society does not involve a similar distinction. Natural selection is found operative in social evolution ; but I think it can be abundantly shown that it is neither the sole nor the chief operative force. Subjective selection and social selection are both present ; social selection is always more or less sub- jectively determined ; and the purposive factor which they both involve becomes increasingly intelligent as development proceeds. When we speak of social evolu- tion as governed by natural selection, we are, I think, more often than not, misled by an analogy which conceals a fundamental difference of character.

I do not think that it is any longer necessary to contend that the evolution hypothesis applies to social processes. That is now admitted. What remains to be done is to analyze the method of social evolution for its own sake, instead of simply transferring uncritically to social science the conception of biology. The point that needs careful examination is the method of social evolution as com- pared and contrasted with the method of biological evolution.

FROM ALFRED FOUILLEE, MEMBER OF THK INSTITUTE OF FRANCE.

The ideas upon the present subject which have been submitted in the" papers of Professor Durkheim and Mr. Branford are worthy of our closest attention.